Ari Navalo v. Cochise Consultancy, Inc.
666 F. App'x 661
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Navalo, a Longshore Act claimant, was awarded compensation by an ALJ who ordered payment of two-thirds of the difference between his stipulated average weekly wage and pre-disability wage.
- For two disability periods that two-thirds calculation exceeded the statutory maximum compensation rate set by 33 U.S.C. § 906(b)(1).
- The ALJ did not expressly state the statutory cap applied and directed the district director to make the ministerial calculations needed to carry out the order.
- The district director initially computed amounts without applying the § 906(b)(1) cap; employer Cochise nonetheless paid only the statutory maximum.
- After Navalo protested, the district director issued an amended calculation applying the cap; Navalo sought a default order and argued the initial (higher) calculation was final and binding.
- The Benefits Review Board affirmed the district director; the Ninth Circuit denied Navalo’s petition, holding either the ALJ implicitly applied the cap or the director’s application of the cap was a proper ministerial act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Navalo) | Defendant's Argument (Cochise/District Director) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ’s final compensation order excluded the § 906(b)(1) cap | ALJ’s award of two-thirds without mentioning the cap means the award exceeded the statutory maximum and is final | ALJ reasonably assumed to apply controlling law; omission does not mean cap inapplicable | Court: ALJ did not rule the cap inapplicable; presume ALJs know and apply the law; Roberts settles cap applies globally |
| Whether the district director exceeded authority by amending calculation after ALJ’s order became final | District director’s amended calculation improperly altered a final judicial award; only appellate remedies were available | Calculation of statutory maximum is ministerial; director may apply the clear statutory cap | Court: Director’s application of § 906(b)(1) was a proper ministerial act given the law’s clarity |
| Whether the initial (uncapped) calculation was final and enforceable, triggering default when employer paid less | Navalo: initial incorrect calculation was final; refusal to pay that amount warranted default relief | Employer paid statutory maximum; payment at maximum corrected the error; director could fix ministerial calculation | Court: No default; corrected calculation and payment at statutory max were appropriate |
| Role of finality and relief from judgment for legal error in ALJ orders | Navalo: finality protects even legal errors once unappealed; parties can rely on award | Court/Defendant: Where law clearly imposes a cap, ministerial correction is allowed; ALJ presumed to follow law | Court: Finality does not shield judgments from ministerial correction where applicable law is clear; petition denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Lockwood v. Commissioner of Social Security, 616 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2010) (presumption that ALJs know and apply the law)
- Roberts v. Sea-Land Servs., Inc., 566 U.S. 93 (U.S. 2012) (§ 906(b)(1) applies globally to all Longshore disability claims)
- Hoffman v. Celebrezze, 405 F.2d 833 (8th Cir. 1969) (final judgments may remain enforceable despite legal error when no timely appeal is taken)
- Zapon v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 53 F.3d 283 (9th Cir. 1995) (distinguishing judicial authority and ministerial acts in post-judgment adjustments)